proceed, the c.b.o. report that we have that again speaks so eloquently. i love numbers. they're so precise. speaks so eloquently to the savengings that are there for the american people. and our guests here today have spoken so eloquently to the needs that they have and have reflected the concerns that are shared around the kitchen table, the dining table of families across america.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> speaker pelosi and other house democrats talking about health care legislation, saying -- saying the budget wil8 reduce by $110 billion other 10 years. understanding from rules committee chairwoman louise slaughter, rulets will likely meet on saturday and debate and vote on sunday. the house is in recess, they've been in recess through the bill signing at the white house, they should gavel back in shortly with a number of bills under consideration today. while we wait for the house to come back, we go to the white house, to the rose garden. >> i think what he stated was that the outlines of what the national -- the outlines of the exchanges and many things like that are based on the senate

bill. i have not had a chance and i will wait for something to be posted online to go through any of those individual aspects. >> the c.b.o. you were ins you were talking about, the most important thing is the long-term budget projections, specifically c.b.o. says these numbers are impredis, even though they're good in the short term, they're imprecise in the long-term because, quote, there's a greater degree of uncertainty about the second 10 years of all of this. i think it quite frankly in most cases the c.b.o. tends to under factor, quite frankly, the savings you see on the back end of these things. >> but given the spending going on in washington, how can the president assure the american people, which are -- that these projecks, which are so far off are true? >> i think our reading of this is that c.b.o. has tended to

under factor savings that you're likely to see over the long-term. this is their best estimation, it's the guide post with which congress uses for each and every piece of legislation. >> thank you, robert. in the meetings the president sholding with members of congress, and by the way, is he having meetings today? jason altmire was here today for the bill signing, is he meeting with him? >> i have not talked about names, i assume there are a numb of people who had a bill signing who were probably spoken to by the staff. i don't know who the president has met with. >> were they invited to try to get them to vote for this bill? >> i think they played roles in getting the bill, the very

important legislation the president signed right here just a few hours ago, to provide tax credits for the unemployed. that's why they were invited to that ceremony. along with many dozen members of congress. >> it wasn't to twist their arms on health care reform? >> i don't doubt somebody mentioned health care reform while they were here, there are probably not many conferrings happening any place in this town that don't involve health care. >> in his conversations with members to what degree is the president stressing the importance ofing is passing health care to his -- importance of passing health care to the strength of his presidency? >> again, chip, i don't think anybody doubts the desire for the president, the president's desire to see this through, the president's desire to get this done. he spent quite a bit of time in the first 15 months of his presidency tackling a problem he believes we have failed to

deal with adequately for 70 or so years. again, after health care passes, i think that we will move on to many other extremely important issues. we've got several more bites at the economic apple in terms of small business lendings, your capital gains for small business on the economic side. as i mentioned, financial reform to citizens united campaign finance case. comprehensive energy legislation. there's no doubt there will be many, many more big issues with which the president deals with. obviously this is one he wants to see through. >> the president told some members that the fate of his presidency depends on passing health care reform. >> i'm not aware of that. but i can certainly check. >> would it be out of character

for him to say that? is that one of the arguments -- >> nobody doubts his desire to see this through. >> on the trip, why not delay it one day? if it's going to happen sunday, does that signal he's concerned about what's going to happen in the senate? >> scheduling worked throughout the night when it became apparent the bill would not post yesterday to see about moving the trip back. we looked through and pulled out what very little padding remained from having moved the trip from thursday to sunday. and without -- unless we took off, basically, extremely early in the afternoon on sunday, it wasn't going to be possible to do, and we had a speech to the australian parliament that you don't want to call on sunday and say, hey, is there a way we can move this back a day?

it just at that point seemed obviously to us that the best course of business was to reschedule nearby niche and australia -- reschedule indonesia and australia for june. >> i heard there were plans for the president to bring his family, do you think that might be reconsidered given he spent four years of his life as a child there? >> those plans will be made as we look toward scheduling in june. i think the president is disappointed based on the relationship that we have with a growing democracy, with an important country in our counterterrorism relationship in a country that's the largest muslim country in the world. the president looked forward to building off what he talked about in cairo. but we'll get a chance to visit both countries in june. >> on dee the slaughter rule,

the president is a constitutional law expert himself, would he sign a bill -- >> he would sign that bill, yes. >> he's not worried that it's constitutional? >> he would sign that bill, yes. >> robert, are you worried that the sort of calendar vise grip you have the house in with this trip now being gone, they'll take advantage of this delay and maybe dilly daly a little bit? >> judging from what i've seen on television and in news reports, i think you'll see a vote -- the best i can tell you, you'll see a vote on sunday. >> the senate calendar, you feel confident everything is going to get done before the easter recess? >> that's our strong hope. >> and delay, not an option in your mind? >> chuck, i think the president would tell you that this has -- we've been working on this quite a long time. we want to get this done. >> are all of his calls right

now to house members, or are there some senators now he's having to call to get them to sign this letter that they would send over? >> he has spoke within a handful of senators over the past several days and as i said over the weekend, this is a -- the president's involved in talking to both the house and the senate because this is -- this is a two-step process. >> are you confident you have the 51 votes in the senate? you know you don't have the house votes -- >> i have not talked with legislative affairs about the latest vote count but i believe this bill will pass the house and then it will pass the senate. >> did any senate leadership ask you to delay the trip? >> none that i'm aware of. >> can you rule out that the president has offered anything in exchange for a vote, whether it's a re-election campaign

thing or some sort of bill, anything like this? >> chuck, we will -- i expect the president will spend a lot of time on the campaign trail when it's time to spend time on the campaign trail. >> i understand that, but anything -- >> chuck, i don't think a member of congress is going to say, i'll volt for health care if you come visit my district and campaign for me. i just don't see that. >> and finally, on the trip, what it's messaging, how concerned are you that a domestic political crisis -- domestic political issue, problem, whatever you want to call this right now, do we delay the international visit like this in an important region of the world are you worried the message that sends to china or indonesia? how concerned is the president? >> the readout we've got from calls the president has made, he'll talk with prime minister rudd later today, but the readout is that each of these two cubtries understands what

the president has been working on what he's been involved in and the importance he has in seeing it through. so again, we've outlined when this trip would be rejeweled. the president believes it was an important trip now and believes it will be an important trip based on many of the things we've discussed, whether it's counterterrorism, our export agenda, a whole host of things that -- >> i know i said that was the last question, but it's been said before the president can walk and chew gum at the same time. does that mean you're choosing to stay here and do health care? >> i think the president believed, again, understand this, we did not want to wake up on -- we did not want, at 10:00 on sunday morning to make a call to the indonesians and australians to say, i know we

were going to be there in a matter of hours, but we're not going to be there i think that would cause some problems just on common sense and manners. but again, i think the president believed that this was something that was important to him, both the trip and the legislation are. i think p the president believes that right now the place for him to be is in washington, seeing this through. >> robert, on the jobs bill, when the white house was unrolling the various initiatives, the point was made that these were all interlocking, integral pieces of one package to create jobs. this is a partial move. is the white house concerned that given the health care debate and other items that are waiting on the agenda that this is too slow in coming and these pieces will not be passed?

>> i mentioned a few minutes ago, i think that the president will soon -- the president and the economic team will soon start working through the next step of this. there have been meetings this past week to talk about the small business aspects, whether it's, as i mentioned, zero capital gains, whether it's depreciation, whether it's $30 billion in lending to small businesses through smaller community banks, we talked about this, i think many weeks ago, we understood this was not all going to be engrossed in one big bill. and the president will continue to work through the plans of these -- the plans he's outlined here toward the end of december or in the state of the union about the ideas that we have to create jobs and create

an environment where businesses are hiring. >> the $30 billion linding facility looms as the next big fight given the proposition that that will be used and now with the easter recess coming, you're moving at least two weeks down the road. >> i take everybody at their word. i think there's not a member on capitol hill that when they talk about the economy doesn't talk about small business. i can't imagine that -- i can't imagine that you'd truly want to see politics played with small businesses getting access to greater capital when that's what many of them tell the president and i think tell members of congress they need in order to meet their payroll and expand their business. >> why do you think politics won't be played with this, given the politics being played with health care for 30 million people? >> i think -- the voters will have their say on the politics.

i know that 11 republicans decided not to play politics with final passage of a jobs tax credit, despite warnings of what happens if health care goes forward, again, i think that -- i think that the president was and the congress were sent here to address the problems people face in this country and that's what voters want to see us do. yes, sir. >> robert, when dennis kucinich announced his decision to vote for health care reform, he said one of the big motivating factors was concern about the attempts to delegitimize the president. did you sense that? >> i was at a meeting when congressman kucinich made his -- i don't know -- i don't know what, in its entirety, that meant. i don't think anybody would question the strong desire of

the president to get this done. >> you keep saying that. >> i think that's proven by events. i think his desire to get it done extends far beyond what i say. >> let me take another question. the enormity of this shadge from the white house, how much does passage of all the other future issues that you've jute lined here today hinge on success of health care reform? >> again, at the risk of repeating myself, i think shk going to pass the house on sunday. i believe shortly it will pass the senate and the president will be able to sign all of it into law. and we'll wake up a week or two weeks from now with what we talked about a minute ago, the need to get credit flowing to small businesses. we'll discuss financial

regulatory reform so that the rules of the road are different than what caused the type of greed and risk taking on wall street. you know, we'll -- we will wake up and there will be more to do. i think that's true and safe to say about every day you're here. >> one more on the fallout from this debate. what are the legal and political assessments here of all these actions by idaho, virginia, different states that say they're not going to accept rules that require people to have health insurance, and even on gun sales and other federal issues? >> i'd have to look specifically at what they're arguing on gun sales. certainly, the belief here is that a provision that requires

responsibility and accountability in health care is important, that that would certainly meet any constitutional argument, and again, i think you've heard the president discuss this. you -- some people say, why don't you just do half of this? well, in order to institute provisions that will phase in the bill for pre-existing conditions, ensuring that pre-existing conditions don't affect anybody ever, you need to have people in the system. if not, you'd have the system be gamed, you'd have insurance companies even more than they're doing now pick winners and losers to the point where you wouldn't have reform. so again, the president and the

team believe strongly that what we're toobt pass and sign into law will meet constitutional muster. >> as peter mentioned, there are a couple of states that passed measures saying we're not going to let a universal mandate go through in our state, dozens of others are poised to pass similar measures. can you explain what the disconnect is, the president says, it's going to save states billions of dollars, why don't they see that? why are the states against us? >> you're asking me to explain the physics of politics. i think the c.b.o. discusses in great detail the type of savings that the system is going to see from this. whether or not the politics is

-- whether people's political agendas are speaking more than what's on -- what's best for their constituents, i think that will ultimately be for voters to decide. >> shifting topic, mr. netanyahu is going to be in town next week. with the trip postponed, can you walk us through plans for that? >> we have not gotten that far down that road yet. we'll have a week ahead tomorrow but i have -- i'm not sure they've gotten that detailed into next week. >> there will be some bilapse, won't there? >> let me get a fuller conversation when scheduling has a chance to breathe. >> "the new york times" reported some talk within the white house of an american plan

in the wake of staaled talks -- of stalled talks right now, is that correct is there talk within the white house? >> our focus is on, and our focus for the last several days has been on restarting the proximity talks and calling on both sides to take steps to return to the table and to refrain from any type of actions or announcements that would undermine the trust that's necessary to get them there. that's what our focus is. >> no american plan? >> our focus is on returning to proximity talks. >> robert, from the podium, either indoors or outdoors, you've taken oh the opportunity at times when the president has been misquoted or there's been a misimpression left about the president said, you haven't availed yourself of that to say

he hasn't said the fate of his presidency depends on the passage of this. >> i generally don't -- >> you just said everyone understands he wants to get it done. i'm just a trying to find out -- >> again, i don't -- i'll leave it to your own reporting rules how you want to report certain things. i've not talked to the president about whether or not he said that. again, the president strongly wants to get this done. wants to get this done in the house this weekend. i think we're going to get that done. as i said earlier, we will wake up sometime next week with a whole set of issues, some of which none of us were thinking about and none of you all were writing and reporting on that we'll have too deal with. >> when you wake up if health care is passed, will wil you wake up in a stronger legislative -- will you wake up

in a stronger legislative position or a weaker one? >> an equally sunny day as this. >> well the american people -- >> i think i've said from the sunny confines of the rose garden that i think health care is going to pass. >> on the issue of the c.b.o. scoring, there are a couple of sentences that note this is a preliminary analysis and the full reconciliation language hasn't been fully vetted. isn't that any numerical or political concern for the white house? >> i'm not a budget expert, major, but i think this is a pretty strong indication of the type of sense this makes fiscally. i think you see that in the first 10 years, this legislation will save more than $100 billion and other the 10 years after that, more than $1 trillion.

greater affordability, greater coverage for the uninsured, stronger consumer protections, look, i have no doubt that c.b.o. will continue to evaluate and provide scores for a long time to come, but i think the president is, and the administration are strongly encouraged by exactly what c.b.o. reported today. >> did you also note the additional caveat that this only deals with mandatory spending and has not had time or the we can sith data to analyze discretionary spending implications of this legislation. >> i've not read the full 25 pages that i'm sure many of you have. i have not talked to anybody on that. >> ok. secretary of state clinton is overseas in moscow. there's some suggestion that programs perhaps the talks are reaching a moment of cullmy nation. do you have a general bit of guidance or readout on that? should we anticipate something in the near future?

do you think it will cullmy nate closer to the summit in mid april? >> we have -- we have always talked about this in a way that the negotiations we want to see produce a deal that moves toward the president's goal of nuclear security and reducing the amount of nuclear weapons in our world. at the same time ensuring that that workers in best interest of the united states that has clearly taken some time to do. i think it is safe to to say that the president has been more personally involved with these negotiations than you've probably seen in 20 or 25 years.

so we're certainly hopeful we get something done. i know the secretary of state will go to moscow, i'm sure this will come up the important meetings that she has with the quartet, but again, i think the president the president has spent an awful lot of his own time working directly with mr. medvedev to make sure we make the progress we need to make on the starr trip. >> on this trip, it's just rescheduling this trip, is there a chance you'd be expanding it to other places? >> i don't want to make any comment on the trip, that's not to say it might not happen, but i just know that in discussing our cancellation with indonesia and australia we mentioned we

gave them a window for coming back in june. >> this might be self-evident, is it necessary for the president to be here next week for the senate part of this process because the reconciliation process is not guaranteed and there are anxieties among house democrats as to what they do will be replicated and passed in the senate. is part of his reason for staying here to be available for that process as well? >> obviously that helps. i think our focus was most immediately on the vote in the house and understanding that as a result of the change, as i mentioned to chip, the result of the likely change in our departure time that in many ways made the rest of the discussion somewhat moot. it was a very short meeting on whether or not based on the available evidence we had to make that determination, despite the great importance of the trip. so as a result of it, we have the opportunity to be here the rest of this week and all of

next week. >> thank you, robert. >> major covered most of the ground that i was -- two quick questions on the trip. >> now he's got his sunglasses and coke out. margarita for mr. garrett, please. go ahead, i'm sorry. >> has the president made the decision to cancel the trip and when was that made? this morning or last night? >> about 9:45 this morning. >> and both sides that have been working on the trip have been trying to produce some agreements on variety of things, some of which have been, i guess, getting closer and others have been have not. was that any consideration in terms of not having time to finish some of the -- >> the only thing we discussed this morning, it was, as i said, a quick conversation

based on what the scheduling knowledge we august brought to the discussion that pushing our departure past a very early window in the afternoon dropped -- a time in the afternoon, would have affected everything else we didn't have that kind of padding left. >> tnks, rt. of quick health ca questis. fit, d the president call speaker pelosi and leader reid after he made the decision to cancel the trip to let them know he was staying? >> i have not got an readout that he did. >> i believe mr. stupak was here for the bill signing, is it safe to assume he met with the president over health care? >> i don't know who he might have met with. >> does the president think he can still get representative stupak's vote? >> i think over the past 24 hours, we have seen strong

indications from those in the catholic church that support our belief that the legislation is about health care reform and that it shouldn't and doesn't change the existing federal law. the catholic health association, the order of nones, support -- the order of nuns' support, i think you saw secretary kildees statement yesterday about those developments and how it affected his thinking. >> that leads to my next question, that was very significant, especially what the nuns said yesterday. i'm wondering, is the president or anyone else from the white house engaging in outreach to groups like that? did the president speak with members of the nuns' group? >> the president melt with one sister of the c.h.a.

>> where was that meeting? >> i believe it was in the roosevelt room. i don't know if she made it into the oval office. >> can you share with us the pitch that he perhaps -- >> the only thing that -- i did not get a detailed rundown of the pitch he made. i know he was efusive about her support and about her as a person for making the courageous statements she has. >> fair to say as a result of that meeting, he has optimism he could gain the vote even of someone like bart stupak? >> i think the president, again, remains very engaged on this and his discussions with members of congress. >> one last one, sorry. was part of the thinking of staying on, or is part of the benefit that he can be here to actually sign the bill because once the house acts, the senate

-- the bill will become law and in fact, it's my understanding the parliamentarian ruled the senate needs to reconcile to existing law. does he have a plan to sign the bill after the house acts? >> again, i would describe this much as i have earlier this week, depending on what the parliamentarian rules and what's driven down here, if the president needs to sign the bill he will. the discussion we had about the trip was, as i said, very, very short. the developments of the timing of a likely vote and the president's desire to be here for that, there wasn't a lot of discussion about different aspects of the senate being here for the senate or for the signature largely because that was all mostly moot when we got to the point that, with a drop dead time it was impossible to

move the trip. >> assuming passage, do you envision the big bill signing with the hoopla after the senate? >> i don't want to get ahead of where the parliamentarian is. if the president needs to sign legislation for this process to continue, many of us would loan him a pen. >> robert, sorry if the -- very briefly on the jobs bill again, i know you spoke and the president spoke obviously with delight about having 11 republicans on board. that's not a tremendous amount. >> for republicans this year, it is. for -- i'm somewhat struck leading a pro-- reading a profile of the leader of the senate republicans yerked many of you all or your news organizations have quoted his desire for bipartisanship, despite the fact that the profile led with a carefully orchestrated plan well before the president was ever involved

in the economic recovery package at doing each and every thing humanly and senatorly possible to slow to -- -- to slow to a grinding halt the progress on the president's agenda. i would say given the fact that the bar set apparently before the president was sworn in, to not have any republican support anything the president does, i'd say 11 is pretty darn good. >> so you accept that that has been the republican plan all along, to not support? >> has anybody from the leader's office sought a correction on the beginning of that profile? >> i'm not the author of that story. >> i'll follow up later. >> you can continue to follow live coverage on c-span3, the house has gaveled back in, series of votes coming up, live coverage on c-span.

designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 45300 in palm desert, california, as the roy wilson post office. the speak empore: the qui is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 419. the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid

upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 1190, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 174, house resolution 1190, resolution providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by a five-minute vote on adoption of the house resolution 1190, if ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 222, the nays are 203. the previous question is ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute for the purposes of inquiring about the weekend schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i yield to the majority leader to inform the house of this weekend's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank -- i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the republican whip for yielding. as previously announced on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. on saturday, members are advised the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. which is the customing with recorded votes as early as 10:00 a.m. this is a change from the previously announced schedule. this is a change from the previously announced schedule.

we're going to meet. what's the problem? you know, let me tell you a little story senator sarbanes used to tell. he was giving a speech once and a man in the back of the room said, i can't hear you. and immediately somebody in the front of the room jumped up and said, i can and i'll trade places with you. now back to this exciting weekend we're about to have. on saturday, as i said, we'll come in at 9:00 a.m., which is the custom, with recorded votes as early as 10:00 a.m. this is a change from the previously announced schedule. in addition, on sunday, the house will meet at 1:00 p.m. for legislative business. on monday, members are advised votes could be earlier than 6:30. now many of you will be here on

sunday and not go home. wee going to try to work that out. i wanted to talk to the minority leadership, the republican leadership on that issue. these are also changes that were not previously announced. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, in addition, we'll consider h.r. 3644, the ocean coastline and watershed education act, h.r. 1612, the public hand service corporation act, in addition, we will consider the health care legislation, which is now posted on the house rules committee website and we will consider that with 72 hours' notice to all the members of that posting. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd ask the gentleman if we are here on monday, no matter what, i would say as to what i heard from the gentleman, and secondly, i'd ask the gentleman, mr. speaker, what time could members expect

votes to begin on sunday? i yield. mr. hoyer: votes will not begin before 2:00. i don't know exactly when the -- we'll come in at 1:00 we may have votes at 1:00 in terms of procedural votes, but i want to make it clear we'll have no vote on the health care bill until 72 hours of the -- after the posting that has just occurred. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i ask for a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 232 and the nays are 187.

the house will be in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, the chair will postponefurther provision on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or yeas and nays are ordered or incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes will be postponed. questions will be taken later. for what purpose does gentlelady from guam seek recognition? ms. bordallo: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3671. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3671, a bill to promote the department of interior efforts to provide a scientific basis for the management of sedment and nutrient loss in the upper mississippi river basin and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from guam, ms. bordallo and mr. mcclintock each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from guam. ms. bordallo: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentlelady may continue. ms. bordallo: h.r. 3671 introduced by our colleague, representative ron kind of wisconsin, would authorize the secretary of the interior acting through the united states geology call survey tore establish a sedment monitoring network for the upper mississippi river basin. the findings of the monitoring network would be used to assist public and private sedment and

nutrient reduction efforts. i would note this legislation has passed the house in previous congresses and i ask my colleagues to support its passage. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i yield myself such time as i may consume the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: the majority has adequately described the bill. based on the history of this legislative proposal, we are not opposing the measure. however, members should note that today's bill has been changed from a prior version. the 10-year sunset has been removed. we were also concerned that the federal government would have unfettered access to private property under this program and the data could be used against

the land owner. however, after meeting with the affected parties, we have concluded that the u.s. geological survey regulations require prior written land owner permission for entry and release for any data collected on an individual's property. i ask unanimous consent to include in the record the appropriate permission form that is used for these purposes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcclintock: it's our understanding that the program authorized in this bill would follow this long-standing practice. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from guam. ms. bordallo: we agree with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that proper protocol should be followed and i ask our colleagues to support this legislation and at this time, mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman, mr. kind from wisconsin, for such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin ills recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. kind: i thank the gentlelady

and for her help and support. i thank the gentleman from california and the members on the natural resources committee for their bipartisan support of the upper mississippi river protection bill. as the gentlelady indicated, this has passed in previous congresses. we are working with the senate to get it to the property so it can be enacted and to address a couple of the concerns and we have worked in a bipartisan fashion on this bill. there is concern about privacy protection and data collection and we feel that what has been worked out is a reasonable compromise to ensure that privacy, but also, more importantly, the buy-in that will be crucial to the implementation of this legislation. we are trying to put the science in place in the upper mississippi river basin. the greatest threat that this great national treasure that we have running through the middle of america compromising 50% of the land mass of our nation are the amount of nutrients that flow into the river basin doing

damage. we heard the dead zone being created in the gulf of mexico. while 40% of the nutrients that are flowing south through the river and ending up contributing to the dead zone ends up in the upper mississippi river basin. we want to use the expertise that usgs has the capacity to do so they can do monitoring and develop computer models so we can identify the hot spots and utilize the resources that are available to target those hot spots to prevent the increased flow of nutrients into the river basin. this has received wide support in the upper mississippi region. all five of the state governors in the upper mississippi region has endorsed this, the upper mississippi river basin has endorsed it and ducks unlimited, and other groups, have endorsed

this approach and it is a vital national treasure that we must do more to protect. the mississippi river affects over 30 million people that rely upon it for their primary drinking source. it is north america's migratory fowl using this as migration, tourism, bringing economic activity to the upper mississippi region and additionally over $1 billion with tourism activity. but what's been lacking is the scientific data that this legislation will put in place so we can start collecting it and tracking it and be smarter with the use of the various public and private approaches that this bill calls for so we can maximize the resources.

again, i want to thank the chairman of the committee, the members of the committee. i want to thank the members of the u.s. geological survey, especially in the upper mississippi environmental science lab. i have worked very closely with them in regards to their long-term resource monitoring program. they do have incredible competency to do the science that we're asking them to do. i want to thank my own river advisory group that has consulted with me on all things related to the river issues and i support this much needed and this bipartisan piece of legislation. with that, i yield back and ask my colleagues to support this will bill. and i thank the gentleman from california again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i yield myself just enough time to wish a belated happy birthday to the the gentleman from wisconsin and inquire if the gentlelady has any additional speakers. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i

have no additional requests for time and would inquire of the minority whether they have any additional speakers. mr. mcclintock: we have no additional speakers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from guam. ms. bordallo: i urge members to support the bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3671. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- ms. bordallo: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. all those in favor of the vote will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on the motion will be postponed.

for what purpose does gentlelady guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the pill h.r. 4252. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar 249, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to conduct a study of water resources in the basin in the state of california and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the gall gentlelady from guam and the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock each will control 20 minutes. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 4252, introduced by our colleague, representative joe baca of california, would authorize the secretary of the interior acting through the

united states geology call survey, to study the health and quality of the aquifers in the rialto basin. this includes the study of perchlorate within an aquifer and condemnation of other aquifers contamination. the groundwater constitutes 79% of the drinking water supply in the inland empire area of california and it is critical to understand any threats posed by contamination to this supply. mr. speaker, i ask any colleagues to support passage of h.r. 4252 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, this well intentioned bill tries to force the administration into making

groundwater cleanup in the rialto colton basis a priority. everyone acknowledges this is the restatement of current law but we all understand what the gentleman from california is trying to accomplish and in the spirit of bipartisanship, republicans supported his efforts in the natural resources committee. but i need to point out that this bipartisan gesture continues to go unresip rocailted. -- unresip roe kated. -- unresip ro kated. we've been trying for years now to restore the valley's economy. they've diverted gallons of water to serve the left's pet cause, the three-inch delta smelt. apologists argue that it's the drought. they ignore the fact that the drought we've had is a relatively minor one by historical standards, it

appears to be over and that in far more severe droughts in the past, far more water has reached the central valley. that's before the environmental left took over our water policy and diverted 200 billion gallons of water to the pacific ocean. it's unfortunate that the majority actually rewrote this bill specifically to keep us from offering amendments that would address the agony of the central valley. time and again, the majority, using parliamentary gimmicks, has prevented any attempt to restore normal water deliveries to tth plum is studied.

plums are underground pockets of water and are some pools of water, some travel in underground rivers. in rialto we know the water has perchlorate in it. we don't know how big it is or how fast the water is moving. we need to know more about the plum to permanently fix the problem. the research establish fled study in h.r. 4252 will guarantee that the problem will be identified. a study by the u.s. geejee yo logical survey is not something

done lightly. it is an intense research endeavor. as the national's largest water and earth and biological science, the u.s. geological survey collects and monitors and analyzes and provides scientific understanding about the nature of the resource, the conditions, the issues and the problems. the diversity of scientific expert enables them to carry out at large scale investigations, provide impartial scientific information, to resource managers, planners and other customers. as an unbiased science organization that focuses on biology, geography, geology, water, they're dedicated to relevant, impartial study of the landscape, our national resources and the national

hazards that threaten us. the study will prere-deuce the perchlorate in our area that caused heartaches, frustration and fear. fortunately, the city council's zero tolerance policy, the city doesn't blend any detectable level of perchlorate into the system. they're conducting well-treated treatment. but what about the cities that do not have the policies or the treatment facilities to clean their watt her how will those people be affected? how will the children be affected? how will those be affected by it? we're very familiar with the water problem in california, as described -- described by my colleague on that side, not only in the northern portion of california where water is much needed, in that area. apart from those problems, water contamination condition prevented. i ask that all members vote in support of this legislation not because it's a california issue

but because it's a national issue that could impact anyone. it's a way to correct a wrong and prevent further problems. commissioner conner from the department of interior stated that the directives of this bill are within the usgs jurisdiction. the usgs found ground water constitutes about 79% of the drinking water supply in the empire. a studyy the usgs a long overdue. we have learned that contamination began in 1940 through the actions of the u.s. military in con -- and continued in 1960 through the work of u.s. defense contractors and was made worse by firework companies. some cities in the area discovered the high level of perchloric contamination in 1996. since that time, the usgs has not made the plume a priority. water managers need to know the source. and the fate.

i state, water managers need to know the source and the fate and the transportation of pembings erchlorate within the basin and the adjacent basin in order to effectively mitigate the con testimony nation. that's why i drafted this bill, that's why i'm grateful we are here today in the administration written statement regarding this legislation, they indicated that the citizens relying on water from the basins would have to compete with other administrative priorities for funding. the message you will be sending to usgs by voting in support of this study will be that families deserve clean drinking water, that families deserve clean drinking water throughout our country and throughout our area and especially those areas like mine being affected. families that rely on drinking water from the tap should not have to drink and -- to drink contaminated water or fear to give that water to their

children or have to purchase additional water to make sure it does not affect the women or children in that home. this is a national issue and is a basic right for our citizens and their families. when someone is contaminated, the only source of drinking water for the community, this becomes a national issue. these families should not suffer from health problems associated with this. it's common knowledge this contamination hurts the thyroids in our body. women and infants are at greatest risk. i want to let you know that the hardship faced by women in the area and why this bill is important. the people are innocent victims and i said the people are innocent victims. other misuse left us with a legacy of con testimony nated water. they are living under a median household income of $3,254,

17.4% of the citizens live below the poverty line. people in the area have double-digit unemployment rates for many months. this area ranked in the top five consistently for having the highest foreclosure rate. these families already shoulder too much of the cost associated with trying to find a solution. h.r. 4252 moves beyond finding those at fault. we know we need to know and fully appreciate the extent of the damage. we must do this to help isolate the problems and prevent other cities from suffering. the contamination plume is moving and many other areas will suffer. the hot spot for contamination is in rialto, california, that has an area in 2009 that was designated as a superfund site that shows how bad the problem is because it is very difficult to obtain this destination. this superfund designation will

help take care of the hot spot but what about the water traveling underground in the plume? what about other cities that are impacted? what about my neighboring city in the city of -- in the cities of riverside? the con testimony nation is spreading. no one knows exactly how much of the contamination is moving or where or exactly where it's going. the treatment alone will not solve the problem because of the contamination in the ground. the rialto colton basis has a plume contaminated by harmful chemicals. without treatment the water is dangerous. i fear for the communities that do not have wellheads treatment facilities. the study will identify the extent of the damage undergo. the bill does not violate pay-go requirements, but serves to notice that the highlights that there is a plume in the

rialt-colton basin. we have an opportunity to be proactive. your vote in support of this bill is proactive and will help families. again, i want to thank the city council for coming in september of 2009 to testify in support of h.r. 4252. he spoke not only for his residents in the city of 96,000 people but also approximately 4,000 residents who reside in the neighboring cities that are affected by the chemicals which have polluted the basin. i want to thank the association of the california water agencies for writing a letter of support of legislation. what we've learned from the study in h.r. 42 will help other areas with this hardship of perchlorate. there are many states with problem shrns, is study will help them be aware of what could be happening in underground. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 4252 and yield back the

balance of whatever time i may have and if i need to take more time, i will. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks recognition at this time? the gentleman from california, for what purpose do you rise? mr. mcclintock: i yield to mr. nunes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. nunes: i want to make sure we have a clear record of what's happening in the house of representatives what is called h.r. 4252. this bill actually was originally called h.r. 2316 and it was marked up in the resources committee and then altered later. now, why did that happen? if happened because the democratic majority cares about clean drinking water for their constituents but could care less about providing clean water to the san joaquin

valley. so i really enjoy people coming down here crying about how they have contaminated drinking water. and i can say one thing that's worse than contaminated drinking water and that's having no water. and so what's happened here is the radical left and the radical environmental group has taken over the entire democratic party. so much so that they won't even allow free and fair and open debate on not only easy california water bill because they're afraid to have to actually consider any amendments but they're also doing the same thing on the government takeover of health care bill to where they're going to try to deem a bill passed mysteriously. so this is a terrible abuse of power. it's a terrible facade that's being put up saying people need clean drinking water when i

don't have a problem with having people having clean drinking water. i think this is a noble bill, a noble cause, but you should not choose some constituents in california over an entire valley in california that has three million people and hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland that has been eyedled to the point where tens of thousands of farm workers have been thrown out of work because the democrats in this body choose to do funny little things and change bills like this, change the numbers and think that the american people won't figure out the games that you guys continue to play on that side. so the more that you play little games like this, the more you play little tricks like this, the more that myself and other colleagues of mine will come down here and point out the hypocrisy of the democrats in the majority.

and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentlewoman from guam, for what purpose do you rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i ask if the gentlelady if she has more time? ms. bordallo: we don't have more speakers. i would inquire of the minority if he has more speakers? mr. mcclintock: no. i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. mcclintock: i'm sorry. i thought you had an additional speaker. i'm sorry. water might be controversial but it needn't be partisan. we've done everything we can in good faith to support this bill for clean drinking water for rialto and colton. we'd ask the majority to

reconsider its opposition to restoring the full water entitlement to the central valley. again, there's something desperately wrong with our public policy when we are at 129% of normal in prescription and yet only 25% of the water deliveries to the central valley. and with that final appeal for bipartisanship, i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i again urge members to support the bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been yielded back, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4252. those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4003 as amended.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 252, h.r. 4003, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to conduct a special resource study to evaluate resources in the hudson river valley in the state of new york to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing the site as a unit of the national park system, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 4003 introduced by our friend, representative maurice hinchey of new york, would authorize the secretary of the interior to evaluate the resources in

the hudson river valley and determine the suitability and the feasibility of establishing the area as a unit of the national park system. mr. speaker, for more than half a century various local state and federal agencies have helped to protect, preserve and celebrate this historic and significant landscape. the valley is home to numerous state and federal parks that honor a variety of historic events. representative hinchey is to be commended for his tireless efforts on behalf of his constituents and the outstanding historic and cultural resources found in new york state. we support passage of h.r. 4003 and urge its adoption by the house today. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired -- the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mcclintock: i rise to yield

myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, h.r. 4003 has been adequately explained by the majority. i do want to say that the committee adopted an amendment by mr. bishop that activities would be eliminated or -- limited or eliminated if is in a national park system. which existing activities such as hunting and fishing and boating and snowmobiling will be restricted. it's important that people living in the affected area know ahead of time how much authority over their local affairs will be ceded to the federal government, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i at this time would like to yield to the gentleman from new york,

mr. hinchey, as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hinchey: i'd like to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to the chairman of the natural resources committee, nick rahall, for working with me to move this important piece of legislation. i'd like to thank chairman grijalva and the staff of the natural resources committee for the support and guidance throughout this process. i'd like to mention there are no restrictions in the context of this legislation for any of the things that were just mentioned. none whatsoever. in fact, all of those kinds of activities will be enhanced and encouraged and be much more easy to achieve and more beneficial to the communities. h.r. 4003 would have the national park system to conduct a study in the hudson valley to

determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the area as a unit of the national park system. a unit of the national park system, not a national park. this legislation is co-sponsored by each of the members whose district is within the proposed study area, and that in and of itself, of course, is very interesting. and they have garnered strong support locally. 24 local organizations have already endorsed the bill, and i expect to see that there will be more in the coming weeks and months. the hudson river valley is one of the most significant river corridors in our country. the historical, natural, commercial, scenic, and recreational resources spread throughout the region. and in the way they do so they are absolutely unparalleled. the hudson river valley's landscapes are known around the

world. in fact, the beauty of these great landscapes inspired the first and one of the -- one of america's great artistic movements, the hudson river school of art. painters such as thomas cole and frederick church immortalized the region's scenery for generations to come. these works and others inspired the american preservationist movement and the movement to establish in our country national parks. today, the region is home to a rich and sensitive ecosystem that also affords ample recreational opportunities including hiking, canoing and other activities. one of the most recent additions is the walkway over the hudson. initially, a rail bridge that was considered a marvel of the industrial revolution. it was abandoned in the 1970's following a fire of one of the -- one of the trains that went

across that bridge at that time. it recently restored and reopened, however, over the course of this past october. and it is now the longest and highest pedestrian overpass in the united states. it's a remarkable bridge where people get enormous amounts of joy walking across it, over a mile across it, and give them an opportunity to get a sense of the hudson river valley looking north and south as they walk across this marvelous mile walkway over the hudson. from a historical perspective, the hudson river valley has played a central role in our nation's narrative and national development. henry hudson first sailed up the river that now bears his name. and we just recently celebrated the 400th anniversary of that very important trip.

during the american revolution, the region bore witness to events that determined the course of that revolutionary war and the establishment of the freedom and independence of our nation. in the 19th century, the hudson river valley helped foster the american industrial revolution and became one of the commercial corridors of our country. in 1807 robert fulton piloted the first successful steamboat voyage up the river. later in the century it connected the nation's greatest port, new york city, with the entire western section of the united states through the erie canale network and the -- canal network and the central great lakes. and it was home to franklin delano roosevelt to hyde park. and it was home to the

environmental and labor movements. preserving and promoting the hudson river valley resources has been a top priority to me dating back to my time in the new york state assembly. while on the new york state legislature, i had legislation to create a process for voluntary regional -- 13 counties that border the hudson river on both sides, east and west. when i came to the congress, i authorized legislation that led to the designation of the hudson river valley national heritage area which provides technical assistance to local communities or local managers to assist them in managing natural and historic sites of national importance up and down the hudson river. these designations have provided tremendous benefits to the hudson valley region, but it is clear that more can be done to protect, preserve and promote the area's unique

resources and its dramatic contribution to the historic development of the united states. i believe an enhanced national park service presence is warranted completely and would have a tremendously positive impact on our local economy. while at the same time sprembing and protecting the region -- preserving and protecting the region's resources. the authorization of this special resource study will begin that process. just to be clear, no one believes the hudson river valley should be turned into a yellowstone-type park. that would make no sense for the region. in fact, i firmly believe that any eventually park unit designation should and will protect private property rights and that local governments should remain -- retain local of land use decisions involving all of the federal -- all of the property up and down the

hudson river that's not federal property. there are several existing park units such as the mississippi river and recreation area, a little bit we heard about just recently, which fit these criteria and could be models for our region. i believe the study should examine these models and the impact they have had, positive impact they have had on their local commess. passage of this bill -- economies. passage of this bill and the subsequent study would position the hudson river valley to gain the full attention of the national park service for all of the significant and substantial historic contributions this region has made to the development, establishment and the continuation of the united states as well as for the area's pristine national beauty. for all of these reasons and more, we are offering this hudson river valley special resource study act and we have gained enormous support from everyone who has heard about it

internally here within the government of the united states but even more importantly widespread endorsements of this up and down the hudson river valley, north and south. and east and west. and so i offer this resolution and give up the last of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition at this time? the gentleman from california. >> mr. speaker, i would yield myself such time as i may consume. i appreciate sincerely the gentleman's sensitivity to the property rights of the individuals in the hudson river valley and the prerogatives of local government control. and for that reason i should think that he would welcome the amendment that was placed in the bill that would give all of the people notice of what existing activities may be restricted if the study concludes that the area should be designated as a

national park system and if it in fact does become such a unit. with that i would inquire if the gentlelady from guam has any additional speakers? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i have no additional requests for time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield? mr. mcclintock: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from guam has the right it to close. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i again urge members to support the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. all time having been yielded the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4003 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- ms. bordallo: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i ask for the yeas and nays on this piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted.

all those in favor will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam seek recognition? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass house resolution 1173. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1173, resolution recognizing the 100th anniversary of the vermont long trail, the oldest long distance hiking trail in the united states, and congratulating the green mountain club for its century of dedication and develop -- of developing and maintaining the trail. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under

consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, house resolution 1173 sponsored by representative peter welch of vermont is a commemorative resolution to mark the 100th anniversary of the vermont long trail. this resolution also recognizes the contribution of the green mountain club for its efforts to develop and maintain the trail over the last century. the vermont long trail is the oldest long distance hiking trail in the united states. the trail runs 273 miles along the ridges of the vermont green mountains and spans the state from the border of massachusetts to the border of canada. on march 11, 1910, the green mountain club was established to begin work on building the long trail. they had served as its stewards ever since. representative welch is to be commended for his efforts to protect and celebrate the

stunning beauty of his home state and for providing his constituents some well-deserved recognition of their conservation efforts. mr. speaker, we support the passage of the resolution and i urge its adoption by the house today and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, the gentlelady from guam has adequately explained this bill. of course it wouldn't be fair to compare the vermont long trail to the magnificent trace of the northern sierra, but i'm assured that the vermont long trail is a very nice one for vermont. the resolution sponsor is wisely -- has wisely avoided any references to sports team and is not involved in any ongoing feuds that i'm aware of. if the gentlelady has no further speakers i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from guam has the right to close and she's recognized. ms. bordallo: i again urge members to support the resolution and i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been yielded back the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1173. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspend -- suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam rise? ms. bordallo: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2788. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 251, h.r. 2788, a bill to designate a distinguished flying cross national memorial at the march field air museum in

riverside, california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, will each control 20 minutes. ms. bordallo: i ask unanimous onha five legislative days in which to revise and extends their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, h.r. 2788 is sponsored by representative ken calvert of california. this bill would establish a national memorial at the march field air museum in california to honor the recipients of the air force's distinguished flying cross. this medal is awarded to members of the united states armed services who have demonstrated heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight. h.r. 2788 spessfice that the memorial is not -- specifies that the memorial is not a unit of the national park system and states that the designation as a national memorial shall not be

construed to require or permit federal funds to be spent on the memorial. mr. speaker, we support the passage of h.r. 2788 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i want to begin by thanking congressman calvert for introducing this bill to designate a memorial in honor of the over 150,000 current and former members of the armed forces who have been awarded the distinguished flying cross. when this bill is enacted a memorial under construction at march field air museum in riverside, california, will be designated as the distinguished flying cross national memorial, this designation honors these patriots and does not require or permit any expenditure of federal funds and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i'd yield such time as he may consume to the bill's sponsor, my friend from california, mr. calvert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he may consume. calcal mr. speaker, i rise in support the -- mr. calvert: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the bill. i'm honored to represent the chapter of the distinguished flying cross society which is the primary sponsor of the memorial. last june i introduced h.r. 2788 which would designate a memorial. which is currently under construction at march field air museum as a distinguished flying cross memorial. it honors all current and former members of the armed forces who have been awarded the distinguished flying cross. the bill has a strong bipartisan support from both the committee and with 48 co-sponsors. the legislation is supported by the distinguished flying cross society, the military officer's association of america, the air force association, the air force sergeant's association, the

association of naval aviation, the vehicle nam helicopter pilot's association and the china-ber ma indian's -- china ber ma association. it would not permit federal funds to be expended for any purpose related to the national memorial. funds have been and will continue to be raised through private means for these purposes. distinguished flying cross recipients have received the prestigious medal for their heroism, extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight while serving in any capacity with the u.s. armed forces. there are many well-known people that have played a vital role in the history of military aviation and have received the award. this renowned group includes captain charles l. lindberg, former president george h.w. bush, brigadier general jimmie doolittle, general curtis lame,

senator mccain, jimmie stewart, admiral jim stockdale, just to name a few. the march air research base which hosts a air mobility you wing is adjacent to the area of the memorial. when completed visitors will be able to witness active operational air units providing support to our troops in iraq and afghanistan. which is an appropriate setting that honors the many aviators who have distinguished themselves by deeds performed in aerial flight. i'd like to thank those who worked tirelessly to ensure this memorial is built and is properly designated in honor of the distinguished aviators that have served this great nation. in particular i'd like to recognize jim chaplain and the loving support of his wife who just recently passed away who have been instrumental in this effort. i hope you'll join me in supporting the designation of the national distinguished flying cross memorial at march field air museum and h.r. 2788.

with that i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? the gentlewoman from guam, for what purpose does do you rise? -- for what purpose do you rise? ms. bordallo: i have no additional requests for time and ask of the minority whether they have any additional speakers? mr. mcclintock: no, if i may, the distinguished flying cross was also awarded to william pitman for his service in flying b-29's in the pacific during world war ii. his daughter, lisa, sits next to me staffing this bill today. and with that i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from guam has the right to close and she's recognized. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i again urge members to support the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been yielded back, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2788. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on

the table. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i ask for the yeas and nays on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. the speaker pro tempore: a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. mr. mcclintock: parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. mcclintock: i'm just wondering, which members did you count standing on the floor a moment ago? the speaker pro tempore: the chair's count of the yeas and nays is not subject to appeal.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam seek recognition? ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1769 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 250, h.r. 1769, a bill to expand the alpine lakes wilderness in the state of washington to designate the middle for pratt river as wild and scenic rivers and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from california, mr. mcclinton tock, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extends their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: h.r. 1769, sponsored by dave reichert of washington, would expand the alpine lakes wilderness area

and designate two rivers as components of the national wild and scenic river system. the alpine lakes wilderness area, originally designated by congress in 1976, has become one of the most visited wilderness areas in the country. the proposed wilderness additions are low elevation lands that provide important habitat for wildlife. when high elevation lands are covered by snow. eld, deer, cougars and bobcats live in the mountain valleys that comprise the proposed wilderness addition. mr. speaker, we urge support of this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: madam speaker, in a moment i am going to yield

time to dave reichert, the lead sponsor and proponent of this legislation. but before doing so, i'd like to recognize what a diligent and persuasive advocate dave reichert has been for this bill. he developed it by working closely with local leaders. he introduced it and has gained the support of washington's two democratic senators. while the bill doesn't take the approach which i believe is best of protecting our forest and public lands, it is only in washington's eighth congressional district which dave reichert has been elected to represent. due to the leadership and hard work of mr. reichert, this bill was advanced out of the natural resources committee and i fully expect it would pass the full house of representatives today. so my friend and colleague from washington state, i offer my congratulations on his success and i yield him whatever time he may consumed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. reichert: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank you, madam speaker. i am proud to stand here today on behalf of my constituents

and my community throughout the region of western washington and especially those working hard in the eighth district to finally bring this legislation to the floor today. i just happen to be the conduit to bring this legislation to the united states house of representatives. so all the hard work really done by the people who live in our region. the alpine lakes wilderness additions and prat and middle fork snoqualmie rivers protection act is the product of teamwork. three years of careful collaboration, consultation and consensus building with local stakeholders. since 2007 we worked with scores of local officials, conservation enthusiasts, recreation groups, public safety advocates and parties interested in land use issues to develop this bipartisan proposal. and i'd like to thank --

particularly thank reagan dunn who held this seat prior to my arrival here who worked tirelessly throughout the state of washington and our western washington area for our environment. and i thank the community for faking the long view and for not letting politics in the way for doing what's right for washington state. because of these efforts we'll have a spectacular wild area to leave behind for our children and grandchildren to yunesd enjoy. h.r. -- use and enjoy. h.r. 1768 is supported by dan evans and the two senators who have worked together over the years to preserve our recreational opportunities for all washingtonians. this bill builds on another important washington state tradition, that is of environmental stewardship. and i want to thank senator

patty murray for introducing campaign legislation on the other side. my bill provides a unique opportunity to permanently protect key additions of the existing alpine lakes wilderness which reaches the crest of the cascade mountains. it also preserves wildlife habitats, existing recreational opportunities and local economies that rely on both. alpine lakes was first designated by congress in 1976 and is one sft most visited and most popular wilderness areas in our country. my legislation embraces important low elevation lands, protects watersheds, protects two rivers with wild and scenic designations and provides flood control for the valleys those rivers run through. this is carefully crafted, taking in existing recreational opportunities for hiking, camping, rafting, kayaking,

mountain biking and wildlife viewing. also taking care to protect the large area to preserve for hunting and fishing opportunities. these additions my bill makes to the alpine lake wilderness does not infringe on any private property issues and will not cost the federal taxpayers a single cent. i hope today that we realize that protecting this wilderness will serve our future generations. and as a grandfather -- my staff wrote this thing and as i'm reading part of this bill today, i noticed in this sentence right here they shortened my life a little bit because they said that i won't have the opportunity to see my great grandchildren enjoy this wilderness area. i have a 15-year-old grandson, so i'm hoping in the next maybe 10 years or so i will watch my great grandchild walk through this park. and i've had the opportunity to

work and, you know, again, with all of the people in my community. it's just a joy to take my grandchildren today, my sons and daughters before that walking through the wilderness, looking at wildlife and seeing the excitement in their eyes as they see wildlife pass right in front of them and some of our wilderness areas -- at some of our wilderness areas in washington state. this wilderness area will be right in the back yard of bellevue, seattle, 40, 45 minutes away. i ask my colleagues to support this legislation today, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from guam is recognized. ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i have no additional requests for time and would inquire of the minority whether they have any additional speakers. mr. mcclintock: we have one additional speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady -- ms. bordallo: then, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you, madam speaker. and i would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. lance: i thank the gentleman from california, the gentlelady from guam, madam speaker. i certainly rise in support of the legislation under discussion. i'd also rise today as a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 2788, the distinguished flying cross national memorial act. the creation of a memorial to honor distinguished flying cross medal recipients is long overdue. these brave men and women are being honored for their heroic and extraordinary achievements during flight. this diverse group of service men and women includes pilots from all five military branches and veterans from every u.s. military conflict from world war i to the current wars in iraq and afghanistan. i'm honored to represent several of these heroes who have received the distinguished flying cross medal.

one of the awardees is james pressman of clark, new jersey. born in elizabeth and raised in raleigh, mr. pressman served as a u.s. army pilot and has been decorated with three flying crosses for his valiant efforts. in 1967 he graduated from the army rotc program at rutgers university where he was enrolled in the army flight program. upon graduation, mr. pressman attended infantry officer basic school and flight school and then served in vietnam from march, 1969 to march, 1970. mr. pressman flew uh 1 h helicopters as part of the ninth calvary as the first calvary division in vietnam. after safely returning home he taught for a year at a flight instructor in fort walters,

texas. he served in the national guard in new jersey. he serves in clark as a retired real estate agent and substitute history teacher at west field and arthur l. johnson high schools. it's my privilege, madam speaker, to recognize him today along with all of the other courageous service men tanned women who have been awarded the distinguished flying cross. i thank the sponsor of the legislation, congressman ken calvert of california, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the natural resources committee for bringing this legislation to the floor. with that i encourage all of my colleagues to vote for passage of the legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. mcclintock: and, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields. the gentlewoman from guam is recognized. ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from

iowa, mr. boswell, such time as he may consume, and before he begins, i'd like to mention that he is the recipient of the distinguished flying cross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. boswell: well, thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boswell: i rise in support. i would feel remiss if i didn't make a few comments from my fellow men that served with great distinction. congress established the distinguished flying cross 80 years ago and today it's america's oldest aviation award. the medal was created to recognize service and recognition. it will give flying crossry sip yents the recognition they deserve. i served 20 years in the army including a couple tours in vietnam. i had the opportunity to serve with many great aviators who were also awarded the

distinguished flying cross. i was truly honored to not only serve with these aviators but in some cases to supervise them. i had the opportunity to recommend brave individuals for the distinguished flying cross. their heroism and that valor oftentimes inspired me and kept me going in face of adversity. this bill today honors my fellow aviators that i served with during my 20 years in addition to the men tanned women who now, who now are protecting us in the skies domestically and abroad. my experience in the army has a strong influence on me, and added to my -- to many positives in the rest of my life. when i look back at that time, i remember that i served with those who gave the ultimate sacrifice to our country, those who served as gave their lives for our freedom and i feel honored i had the opportunity to serve. because of this experience, i truly relish what a tremendous gift and what a privilege it is to be an american. today, i'm extremely pleased to honor those aviators and all

aviators. i strongly urge colleagues to join in supporting h.r. 2788. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from guam is recognized. ms. bordallo: mr. speaker, again, i urge members to support the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 1769 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam seek recognition? ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4395 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill.

the clerk: union calendar number 254, h.r. 4395. a bill to revise the boundaries of the gettysburg national military park to include the gettysburg train station, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, and the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from gaumgaum -- guam. ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: madam speaker, h.r. 4395, introduced by representative todd plats of pennsylvania, -- platts of pennsylvania, would authorize a boundary change at gettysburg national military park to include the gettysburg train station. madam speaker, it was here that president lincoln arrived to honor the war dead on the field

of battle and deliver the address that would forever define the civil war as a battle for the freedom and the rights of all americans. under the proposed legislation, the national park service would take over management of the train station from the borough of gettysburg and community partners would staff it. the bill would also expand the park boundaries to include additional historic lands and would add protections for the resources of this hallowed site. madam speaker, h.r. 4395 has urge its adoption by the house today. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you, madam speaker, i yield such time as i may consume to myself. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcclintock: the collegeslation allows the national park service to accept the donation of the small parcel of land that will allow it to better interpret the historic battle for which the park was created. it also authorizes the park

service to purchase the historic train depot where abraham lincoln arrived and departed from his historic visit in 1863. i'm told there was a time when that historic train depot served as a pizza particler. today it serves a much more fitting role as a museum and under this measure the park service will take over its operations. and now if i may i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman, mr. platt, the author of the measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. platt platt thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate -- mr. platt: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding and i rise in support of the bill to extend the poundries of the gettysburg national park. i'm honored to have introduced this legislation and support the appreciate -- and appreciate the support of the chairman in moving this bill to the floor. gettysburg is a unique and very special place. when i travel around the country and i'm always proud to talk to

fellow citizens about my district in central pennsylvania, including caroline lisle, pennsylvania, where the united states army war college is located and certainly my home town of york where continental congress met for nine months in 1777 and where the articles of confederation were adopted. no town, however, think a mention gets quite the reaction as gettysburg. not only did gettysburg host the battle that marked the turning point of the civil war in 1863 but it's also where president lincoln gave one of the most historic addresses in our nation's history. h.r. 4395 would expand the boundaries of the national park to include the historic lincoln train station as well as a 45-acre plot of land in the -- at the southern base of big round top in order to ensure preservation of these properties for generations to come. both theses -- pieces of land are historically significant. the lincoln strain station

served as a hospital during the time of the 1863 battle and was a departure point for many wounded and deceased soldiers as they were returned to their homes. the station is also are president lincoln arrived to give his historic gettysburg address. the 1858 structure is listed on the national register of historic places and is currently owned by the borough of gettysburg. it uses the station as a visitor center, however, due to a lack of funding and available volunteers, it is unable to keep the center open on a regularly scheduled basis. the borough supports this legislation and wishes for the park service to acquire this historic parcel. that has truly been restored to its original beauty and can just be an added destination point for so many visitors to gettysburg, pennsylvania. the 45-acre parcel of land at the base of big round top hosted

cavalry skirmishes in july, 1863, as part of the battle and currently contains critical wetland and wildlife habitat. the gettysburg foundation currently owns this piece of land and would like to donate it to the national park service once it is added to the park's foundry. as we all certainly appreciate the national park service's task with preserving and maintaining a huge number of very important parks, over 400, i believe, like all federal agencies, the national park service works within a constrained budget to allocate resources efficiently and effectively. i'm sensitive to the current obligations of the m.p.s. and believe that we should expand its commitments with thoughtfulness and without haste. i strongly believe that these two additions proposed by this legislation are truly historic in nature and would add great value to the parks -- park's already impressive resources with that i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and

yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. mcclintock: madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i have no additional requests for time and would inquire of the minority if they have additional speakers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded. ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i again urge members to support the bill and i wish to thank my colleague, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for managing the bills with me this afternoon and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution h.r. 4395 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- ms. bordallo: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested.

all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: , madam speaker, -- madam speaker, h.res. 1190 authorizes the house consider suspension rules from may time march 21, 2010, this rule is negligence because of the clause 1-a of rule 15, the speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on monday, tuesday, or wednesday of each week. the rule also provides that the speaker shall consult with the minority leader on the designation of any matter considered for suspension. in order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the rules committee must authorize consideration of these motions. i want to remind my colleagues that any legislation passed under suspension of the rules still must receive at least a 2/3 vote. this rule will help us move important bipartisan legislation before we recess for the upcoming district work period. a list of suspension bills will be provided by the majority leader at the appropriate time. we expect a number of important bills to be considered.

additionally, we expect the rules committee to meet again to make several other rules in order. before i reserve my time, let me just state the obvious, we are waiting for the health care bill to ripen and be ready for floor consideration. while we wait, there is business this house must attend to and this rule helps us do that. let me be clear, we will vote on the health care bill in the next few days. we will do so with the publicly released c.b.o. score that shows that health care bill does not increase the deficit and it reduces the deficit and we'll do so while allowing 72 hours for anyone who wants to read and analyze the bill before we vote on it. we will do so knowing that we will ensure 32 million people who currently lack health insurance today. madam speaker, this rule simply allows the house to conduct business until the health care bill is ready to be brought to the floor for a final vote a. vote which i'm confident will

prevail. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding time. madam speaker, we are on the cusp of voting on legislation to permit a federal government takeover of 1/6 of the nation's economy. this is the most significant piece of legislation in our generation. the american people get that and they do not want this bill. they want health reform that makes sense and will make health care more affordable and accessible. when the chairwoman of the rules committee, ms. slaughter, flooded the proposed slaughter solution last week, the outcry was immediate. you would think that my colleagues would take their title of representatives seriously and want to listen to the american people and have an open process. that's why i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question today so that we can amend this rule to allow the

house to consider h.res. 1188. this resolution sponsored by mr. griffith will ensure an up or down vote on the senate's health care takeover by r&d&rrn) the speaker

r rzd hdb

>> our colleagues have put a special carve out and this bill kay aarp. they deny access for pre- existing conditions by imposing plans. they have a tremendous turn down on pre-existing conditions. medicare kern's down twice as many people as the insurance companies do and they want to put this into medicare plans. i would like to yield my time to the ranking member of the rules committee. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he takes.

>> before i get to that, i would like to engage in a colloquy with my good friend and said that we have had this constant drumbeat of us versus them. the democrats are for the people and the republicans are for the insurance companies. and we continue to hear that over and over again. others on the other side of the aisle and many people in the media who continue to put forth this argument by saying that the charge that we have tried to do nothing to deal with this issue is out there.

this has been designed to bring the cost of health insurance down to make sure that more americans have access to health insurance. i am happy to say put into law this 23 years ago. the first bill to call for the establishment of medical savings accounts which incentivized americans to put more dollars aside to save the plan for direct health care costs for health insurance. the second thing we have done, i am very proud about the product of medicare part b because seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs. what i would like to do is talk about a couple of things that we have worked on when we were in the majority that we passed through this house but unfortunately were blocked by my

friends on the other side of the aisle and the other body. yet when we pass that, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose unfortunately to block that measure. we have seen an increase and the number of people who do not have health insurance in this country because of the fact that democrats chose to block our establishment of associated health plans so small business is out there. the second issue that something

he believed it is important to utilize which is lawsuit abuse reform. one of the reasons that we see this dramatic increase in health-care costs is many doctors have to engage in what is described as defensive medicine. they have to constantly prescribe all kinds of tests which are unnecessary but they do it for one reason, and that is they do it because they are afraid of being sued. madam speaker, in the last republican congress, and our attempt to bring the cost of health insurance down, we passed out of this house real lawsuit abuse legislation. that was blocked and the other body by our democratic colleagues. this notion that was put forward that we somehow have

done absolutely nothing to deal with the plight of those americans who do not have access to quality health insurance is preposterous. we have heard about this issue of transparency and disclosure and accountability. all i listened to my friend argue that we have had this great deal of transparency. why is it that the american people are saying that we should start over and we should have a process that is transparent and open? never before in the history of the republic have we seen what is being contemplated used on such a massive issue and on the signature issue of an administration. we know that this is the

signature issue put forth and argued more than one year. and we have the speaker and the majority leader say that it is acceptable for us to completely to my accountability, to avoid accountability and to prevent members from actually being responsible for the votes that they cast. madam speaker, the american people get it. no matter how diligently with the work overtime in the back rooms of the capital to block any opportunities for transparency, the american people are able to see through what it is that they're doing. it is one of the great benefits of the new technology that exists today and the fact that there are democrats, as well as republicans, who are decrying this. i joke that i sometimes watch some of the programs on television that are maybe a little left of center. i am proud to do that. i watched them with regularity.

i listened to a number of their commentators who and no way should be considered supporters of the republican vision that is out there actually say that it is wrong, it is wrong for democrats to go down this road up self executing this massive bill. they are arguing for transparency and disclosure and accountability. i believe it makes a great deal of sense. when we defeat the previous question, i hope madam speaker can do that, we will take the initiative that has been launched by our newest republican colleague, parker griffith, who has come forward and offered a proposal to say that if we are going to debate this health care bill, which should have an upper down vote and an extended debate.

this would not allow one single minute of debate on the floor of the people's house to debate the health care bill. the only thing that we would debate is 30 minutes on either side on the special role that would come to the house floor. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and when we do that, we will bring up and allow a vote on the proposal that will ensure that it will have an up or down vote on health care issue and the kind of free-flowing debate that the american people to serve. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yield. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> give me a break. somehow republican ideas have helped anybody in this country dealing with the high cost of insurance? it is ridiculous. in california alone, 8 million people went without health insurance. that is about 25% of all

californians under the age of 65. that is where some of the strongest malpractice laws are in place. this is crazy. people are struggling to pay for their health insurance. people who pay for it should be able to get what they expected that. we have a situation where we not only have to worry about the uninsured, we have to worry about people with insurance who find themselves sick and for crazy reasons, find that they will be denied coverage. this is the united states of america. we can do better. we could have the best for everybody. i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> let me thank my colleague from the rules committee and the speaker. the beauty of sports, we are

entering into march madness, we just witnessed the olympics, there is a scorecard. all of the talk and nevada at this not matter. you look at what the score is. we had a republican house and senate and president clinton on the question of providing insurance to tens of millions of americans who did not have it, they did zero. on the question of reining in insurance companies and excess costs, they did zero. in terms of dealing with the practices of insurance companies taking away coverage on a pre-existing condition because they say pregnancy and acne and domestic violence are preexisting conditions. they did zero for six years. we now have a democratic president. we have a democratic house and a

democratic senate. in less than 16 months, we have provided health care to over 10 million children. even against the tobacco lobby and all of our republican colleagues who voted against it, we prevail. we voted to take away the exemption from insurance companies. within a few hours, from this moment, we are going to provide over 32 million of our fellow citizens with health insurance coverage through a proposal. we want to rain and the worst practices of insurance companies and a limited lifetime caps. we are going to make sure that children with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage. we are moving to look now at the

score card. all of the talk is wonderful. i heard my colleagues say they did this and tried to do this. what ever did republican president and majority did over those six years is overwhelmed by what was left undone. we have begun this work and we will finish this work and we're going to make sure that in this country, we join the rest of the industrialized world in providing insurance for all of our citizens. we are prepared to vote about it in 72 hours. gsns)

>> from their financial statements, they had royalty fees of $414 million pure profit on their bottom line. i raised this issue with mr. rangel when he was with the rules committee before because i am concerned about the way aarp is being represented to the people. their profits have skyrocketed, jumping 31% from 2007 to 2008. and we find again that they want to pick the winners and losers instead of allowing individuals in this country to make their decisions on what they should be doing. i would like to yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from georgia. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you for yielding. i want to ask three questions of my democratic colleagues. are you so arrogant that you

know what is best for the american people? are you so ignorant to be oblivious to the wishes of the american people? three-fourths of america to not want this bill. argue so incompetent that you ignore the constitution that you ought to use tricks and assumption to ram down the throats of the american people something that they absolutely do not want? i hope and pray and call upon the american people to speak louder and i hope and pray that our democratic colleagues will listen to the american people and listen to their constituents and stop this government takeover of health care. i hope you will listen to president obama when he says that the american people to serve and up and down vote. i hope that i can encourage my democratic colleagues to defeat this previous question so that

democrats and republicans can work together so that we can find some common sense solutions to lower the cost of health care. this is going to run millions of people out of work and increase the cost of everybody's health insurance. i am not a clown or proponent of the health insurance system. but please listen to the american people. but the feat this and work together to find some common sense solutions better in the best interest of america. >> the gentleman yields. the gentleman from georgia all reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. >> i think the gentleman from georgia nicely summed up the

gist of their grand old party. they would rather resort to name-calling. 46 million americans go without health insurance. that is putting profits over patientss. it is allowing insurance companies to screen for pre- existing conditions. we can do better for our people. i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky. >> i think my colleague. we have been engaged in this discussion for the better part of one year. we talk about the things that the american people are demanding. they want us to act in a comprehensive way to solve the delivery of health care. we know because we have seen polls just as our colleagues on the other side have seen that

when you ask the american people, to they want competition and choice in their health care, insurance, they say it by a margin approaching 80%, yes we do. they want an end to the insurance practices of ending prejudice and discrimination because of preexisting conditions by overwhelming margins. when we say to you want protection against having your insurance canceled just because you happen to get sick? they say overwhelmingly, yes we do. when you work through all the elements of the legislation we are considering an appeal approve this weekend, the american people overwhelmingly say yes. we want that. our colleagues like to throw out these national poll numbers and say these show that it is about 50/50. but the american people do not want this. there was one poll that asked

those people that said the war against president obama's reform plan, how many of you who say you are against it are against it because it does not go far enough? nearly 40% said that is why they are against it. that is what i have been hearing in my district. just like the shop owner and spoke to over christmas who said i am against what you're doing. she said because she has diabetes and i cannot wait till 2014 to get the help i need. is she against reform? not on your life. she wants reform. she wants it faster and she wants more of it. that is what i am hearing all over my community. i did not know what is going on in some of the republican communities but what i hear overwhelmingly is to it, do it now, we are desperate. as we have gone to this debate and we were talking about how

much they did when they were in control, they said there were four insurance companies selling insurance across state lines. did they do anything when they had control of congress for 12 years? the damage that possible? they say they are for ending preexisting conditions. did they do anything about that? no. bypassed a prescription drug plan. for some people, that is working out well. those people in the middle portion who have to pay 100%, it is not working out very well. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. they passed the bill but did not pay for it. this is going to add $8 trillion to our debt. while the public and said they are concerned about solving

american health care problems, they have not done anything about it. the one thing that sticks with me throughout this one year long debate, nobody on the republican side has ever said that they had any interest in insuring the uninsured. those 47 million people, many of whom are going bankrupt and dying, did they say anything about insuring the uninsured? not one word. we are committed to providing the system that america wants, needs, and demand. this will be the proudest vote by ever cast on the floor of the house of representatives. >> the gentleman yield >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> i want to say to my colleague from kentucky, even his own president has said that americans will not have competition and choice in terms of what they are able to keep.

he said that you will not be able to keep the insurance plans you like under this plan. i want to make a correction. with that, i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague -- colleague from south carolina. >> the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. >> i think the gentle lady for yielding. i urge congress forced to vote no on the previous question so the house can consider 1188. from the moment this bill was introduced, this government takeover of health care, has been on life support kept alive only by closed door prophecies and sweetheart deals. i have spent a tremendous amount of time in south carolina talking to people about health care and quite frankly, the american people are tired of the

games, the mix, and they have been tired of us trying to muscle this bill through the legislative process. it is time we pull the plug on all these schemes. the american people deserve an honest debate and open vote by congress on this legislation. i urge all of my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. let's give the american people a true up or down vote on this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> he has 16 minutes remaining. >> i yield myself time as i may consume. i want to make something clear. that is the president has said

over and over and over again that if you like what you have, you can keep it. no matter what my friends on the other side say, no matter how much they do not like the fact that people can keep their own insurance, no matter what you say, the fact is the fact. the other fact what will insurance reform do starting the first day becomes law? on day one, annual caps on coverage will be eliminated. the practice of dumping people even if they have paid premiums would be eliminated. pre-existing conditions, exclusions for children would be limited. on day one, parents would be allowed to carry their children on their health care policy until there are 26. completely closing the do not -- donut hole.

this would all happen on day one when we pass this. these are the things that when they were in charge, they did not have time to do. there were busy giving wealthy people tax cuts. giving corporations more tax cuts and more subsidies. the time has come for us to care about the american people and do something for the american people. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from north carolina. or the gentleman yield four questions? let me say, madam speaker, the gentleman obviously did not pay attention to what the president said at the republican retreat because he said that he had made a mistake in saying that people could keep their insurance plans if they like to come. what i wanted to ask my colleague is can he guarantee the american people that in the

senate bill that there are going to vote on under a track being used by the rules committee that the american people will be able to keep their insurance plans if they like them? the president said that is not the case. i think it is very important that we get that said. with that i yield 3 minutes to my colleague from texas. >> and the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. >> add to appreciate my friend across the aisle earlier saying that all lies and distortion must stop. i am glad he finally agreed with us on that position. it is important. people have been misled about what this bill does and does not do.

>> they said this is ok. i do not believe this changes existing law they say. look at page 19 and they see abortions for which public funding is prohibited. the services described are abortions for which the expenditure of federal funds appropriated for the health and observances are not permitted. based on the law, they look at that and said that this not change existing law. they do not look over to page 124 that says under this bill, you have to provide insurance policies that will actually cover as it says here, that plans -- that is the one that

says you cannot use federal funds to pay for abortions and a few pages over it says you have to provide these policies. that is the kind of gamesmanship that is in here and people will suffer as a result and that is just a small example. you hear over and over that you are killing people by not having this plan. we heard the president say in 2007, the first step will be this bill. that will be the first step and then it will be the transition. they said canada had to start with this bill and go to socialized medicine. let's look at what they do. here you find out that if you want to die quicker from cancer than any other country, did not

come to the u.s. you live longer here. that is not right. and i have a bill that does the same we are talking about and newt gingrich told me in june that that would revolutionize the discussion. i have been trying to get that for work and i cannot get it scored. i am shut out. they will snap their fingers and get you a score the next day but not for this republican even with the support of all of the people that said i needed. let's get there for a change. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> madam speaker, i gamesmanship my foot. there is no federal money in this bill for abortion. the hyde amendment applies to the law of the land. to get up here and try to go would the gentleman yield? >> i will not yield. there is enough misinformation. in terms of course, let me read

this court today. an analysis of the democratic health-care overhaul by the combustion -- congressional budget office shows it could cost $940 billion dollars over a decade and expand insurance to 32 million people. it will also sliced the deficit by $130 billion in the first decade and 1.2 trillion dollars in the second. cbo report which will be published will show that it costs the cost by 1.4% per year while eliminating the donut hole. those would extend the solvency of medicare for at least an additional nine years. this bill will not only ensure 32 million people but will cut our deficit which is something everybody says they want to do. let's stick to what is real and what that i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker.

i think the reason that my colleague across the aisle there's to mention is the deficit is that in order to do that, they raise taxes and that is something they always leave out. they are never real about that. my colleague and taxes asks for another 30 seconds and i will yield. >> the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> i appreciate my colleague saying there is no money in here about abortion because the amendment does not allow. he is correct with regard to the appropriations to the labor and hhs. that is all the amendment applies to put it does not apply to the trillions of dollars that are operated in this bill around labor hhs. that is money that does not apply to. my colleague asks us to get real? that is as real as it gets. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has

expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i yield myself 30 seconds just to reiterate that there are no federal funds in this bill to cover abortions. there was an amendment that made that crystal clear. there should be no debate about it. anybody on this floor saying it does is plain wrong. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i now yield two minutes from -- to my distinguished colleague. >> thank you. we are talking, and this is the only opportunity we have for real debate on this because speaker pelosi and her liberal lieutenants have decided to ram this down the throats of the american people without having an actual vote on the the house floor which violates article 1 of the constitution. there are a number of constitutional questions about the bill but they keep talking

about how good their bill is. let's just look at their credibility on this issue. when speaker policy got the gavel in 2006 and became speaker, she said the democrats intend to lead the most honest and open and ethical congress in history let's review the record. just a few weeks ago, speaker pelosi said we have to pass the bill so you can find what is in it. they did not even know what is in the bill. they will not release the cbo . but there are rumors flying around. the fed this would be on fees and it can and they are meeting behind getting more sweetheart deals. they broke that pledge multiple times. let's look at the latest on this slaughter rule. speaker close he said the other day that she likes it because people did not have to vote on

the senate bill. but do they really think the people of this country are stupid? of course the people know what is going on. people will not be fooled by this abomination of the process. if this bill really was so good, why are they doing this behind closed doors? they want you to believe to not worry, it is going to work out the way you want it. we have seen multiple times when the mob -- when the president said that but that is not accurate. it has been confirmed that you will lose health care. we have seen on abortion language, to not worry. no tax funding for abortion. argue going to believe the people that broke every promise? -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> madam speaker, i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. >> i think the gentle lady and i will finish with this.

what you believe people that have broken every other promise? are you going to believe the catholic bishops who said this would be a career confining pro- abortion vote. do you believe them? or do you believe the folks that have broken every other promise who are cutting more sweetheart deals that they do not want anybody to see. what are they trying to pass it without an actual vote? they know the american people are sick and tired of this proposal. the public will be heard on this issue. >> the gentleman times has expired. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i did not know how to respond to that tiebreak. it insures 32 million people in this country that did not have insurance. it will ultimately contain the costs of average families and small businesses have to deal with with the rising cost of health care. it prohibits insurance companies

discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. we have heard story after story of people who were denied insurance because their condition was acne. we have heard stories where insurance companies have cut people off from insurance because their weight was wrong on the application. we have had stories where women have been denied insurance because their pre-existing condition was there were a victim of domestic violence. give me a break. we are supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in this country. we should be talking about how to solve the problems. not all this rhetorical flourishes that are blatantly misinformation. enough. let's get down to what matters. that is doing something for the american people. it may not be convenient for the election in november. you are all trying to figure out how you tonight president obama and a victory and how we

obstruct the process. you used the filibuster over and over again. people are sick of that. people want us to help deal with this issue. it is quite frankly becoming an issue that they cannot handle because costs are going up and up. small businesses are not hiring people because health-insurance costs are going up. families go bankrupt when somebody gets sick. >> the gentleman reserves. >> members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair and not to others in the second person. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i find it so interesting that our colleagues across the aisle talk about the problems with the filibuster in the senate. that is what bills did not get passed. and about misinformation, there probably has never been a bill

that has been more represented -- more rec -- more misrepresented to the american people that this bill. i think the american people understand the truth and they are going to act on the truth. they are doing it now and telling them not to vote on it. they feel obliged to do it. i want to say that while my colleague across the aisle keeps ranting and raving about corporate profits for insurance companies, he does not say a word about the corporate windfall for the big farm companies. these are owned subsidiaries of the big farm companies. of all of the single lobby industries in washington, the largest this pharmaceutical researching. they spent $26.4 million on lobbying last year. that is nearly three times as much as the insurance lobby

which spent only 9 million. let's talk about profits. drug makers had a combined profit margin 22.2% compared with the insurer's 4.4%. merck made $12.90 billion exceeds that of the 10 largest insurers combined. i can go on and on. i would like to put this article into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. the reason they did not talk about the drug industry is because big pharmaceuticals helped write this bill because it attacks them. they know that they're going to get the windfall out of this bill and again our colleagues across the aisle are wholly

owned subsidiaries of them. my colleague from lucia not brought up the very important point that i think needs to be mentioned again and again. what chairwoman slaughter has been proposed and what will be done is to use a role providing for consideration of both the said that and reconciliation bills to deem the senate bill passed avoiding the political problem that stems from taking a true up or down vote on the horribly unpopular legislation. if this legislation is doing so much a good for the american people, our colleagues should be proud to be voting for this in an up or down vote. they keep saying it but saying it does not make it so. even though, again, speaker pelosi says on page 23 of her

documents that every person in america has a right to have his or her voice heard. no member of congress should be silenced on the floor. on page 24 she says the bill should come to the floor under a procedure that allows open debate and members should have at least 24 hours to examine the bill prior to for consideration. all we have seen is broken promises and speaker policy is using parliamentary trickery. this is not with the american people sent us here for. they did not send us here to undermine the rules law and to do things with tricks. they know this is the wrong

thing to do. that is what the have been jamming the funds and vote now. i will reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> madam speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds to remind my colleagues that there is a cost to doing nothing. there is a cost to embracing the status quo. for middle income families alone, the number of uninsured people in this income group would increase by 7.3 million people. that is the middle income category. is that the direction we want to go? to force millions of millions more people into the ranks of the uninsured which will ultimately add to our deficit and debt? i do not think so. i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon. >> i appreciate the courtesy in

permitting me to speak on this role. and for his unequivocal call for being realistic and some of the outrageous things we have heard on the floor. i just heard my friend from texas talk about demonizing the canadian system and calling it socialized medicine. it is really kind of ironic, first of all, canada has basically medicare for all. it is it government-funded insurance program that canadians pick who they want to be their doctor just like americans who are on medicare pick their doctor. i would say frankly that most americans would be happy with the overall outcome of the canadian health care system. they pay less, they get sick less often and when they do get

sick, they get well faster and they live longer than americans. the sad truth is that our non system of health care, which is very good for veterans, pretty good for senior citizens, but for other americans, particularly approaching 50 million uninsured, it is a problem and increasingly, if we do not do something, the increase in premiums that we are seeing for private insurance, a higher copays, higher deductibles, and coverage that is getting skinnier and skinnier puts us on a path that is disastrous for american families. i hope that we are able to come forward, move past some of the outrageous rhetoric and the falsehoods and look at the facts.

americans have come up if they can afford it, some of the best health care in the world. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> those that can afford it have the best health care. americans' overall, by any objective measure of performance live life expectancy or how soon babies die we do not perform very well. increasingly, the pressure on small businesses to deal with the failing system, what is happening on families who are having more and more insurance bureaucrats trying to prevent them from getting coverage is a prescription for disaster. that is why this year there will be more than 1000 people that i represent who will go bankrupt from medical costs and most of

them have insurance. madam speaker, that does not happen anywhere else in the world. if we are able to move forward with this health care reform, it will no longer happen in the u.s. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> the gentlewoman from north carolina. >> we will preserve. -- we will reserve. >> may . the gentlewoman from north carolina has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: we are just checking on one speaker. madam speaker, i would like to yield two minutes to the

gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, madam speaker. i think it is so important for us to move forward and not be derailed in our efforts to reform what is important policy in this country. health care obviously is something that needs to be provided in terms of insurance to our working families out there. we know the impact of delay and the impact of no reforms. status quo simply does not cut it. we cannot afford to allow our families to continue with such gross injustice. obviously the increase projected, $1,800 per year for family p desk a privileged resolution. 1 resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r.

3644, to direct the national oceanic and atmospheric administration to establish education which advance environmental literacy, including preparedness and adapt built for likely impacts on climate change and coastal watershed regions and providing for consideration of the bill 1612 to amend the public lands core act of 1993, to expand the authorization of the secretaries of agriculture, commerce and the interior, to provide service learning opportunities on public lands, help restore the nation cultural, historic, ecological and scenic resources, train a new generation of public land managers and promote value of public service. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i rise to question the privileges of the house and offer the resolution previously

noticed. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: the committee of standards on official conduct initiated an investigation into allegations related to earmarks and campaign contributions in the spring of 2009, whereas on december 2, 2009, report and findings in seven separate matters regarding earmarks and campaign contributions were forwarded by the office of congressional ethics to the standards committee. whereas on february 26, 2010, the standards committee made public its report on the matter. where the committee found that widespread perception exists among corporations and lobbyists that campaign contributions provide a greater chance of obtaining earmarks. no evidence that members or their staff considered contributions when requesting earmarks. whereas the committee indicated that with respect to the matters forwarded by the office of congressional ethics, the evidence cited in the findings nor the evidence in the record

before the standards committee provided a substantial reason to believe that violations of applicable standards of conduct occurred. whereas the office of congressional ethics is prohibited from reviewing activities taking place prior to march of 2008 and lacks the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents. whereas, for example, the office of congressional ethics noted that in some instances, documents were redacted or specific information was not provided that in at least one instance they had reason to believe that a witness withheld information requested and did not identify what was being withheld. whereas the office of congressional ethics noted that they were able to interview only six former employees of the p.m.a. group with many former employees refusing to consent to interviews and unable to obtain evidence. wreas "roll call" noted that the

report was five pages long and included no documentation of any evidence collected or any interviews conducted by the committee. beyond a statement that the investigation included extensive document reviews and interviews with numerous interviews, "roll call" march 8, 2010. it is unclear whether the standards committee included any activities that occurred prior to 2008. whereas it is unclear whether the standards committee interviewed any members in the course of their investigation. whereas it is unclear whether the standards committee in the course of their investigation initiated their own subpoenas or followed the office of congressional ethics recommendations to issue subpoena. therefore, be it resolved that not later than seven days after the adoption of this resolution, the committee on standards of official conduct shall report to the house of representatives with respect to the activities addressed in its report of

february 20, 2010, one, how many witnesses were interviewed, two, how many subpoenas were issued in the course of their investigation and three, what documents were reviewed and their availability for public review. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution qualifies. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i move that the resolution be referred to the committee on standards of official conduct. the speaker pro tempore: parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona will state his inquiry. mr. flake: satisfied. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one hour. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this is a matter that properly belongs before the committee of standards of official conduct. i move the question question the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion. the question is on the motion to refer. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the yeas have it

and without objection, the motion to reconsider to lay on the table. mr. flake: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to refer will be followed by five-minute votes on motions to suspend the rules with regard to h.r. 3542, h.r. 3509, house resolutlution 1173. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]